cmaldoon

Nose: Not massive. Apples and lemon zest. A hint of Florality And a deeper note reminiscent of cider

Palate: a bit lacking on the entrance, Acid and minerality wrapping lemon rind comes through in the mid palate. The finish is long and palate cleansing like a bit of parsley Without being nearly as green.

Overall: I like the nose the best, the finish next, and I find myself wishing for quite a bit more concentration on the palate.

I wouldn't want to pay $20 or $30 for this wine but at the $16 I got for is perfectly serviceable. This is most certainly an old world style wine, it tastes very little like most common Chardonnays in California today.

That said, I recently found a pretty darn good chardonay for $12 from a winery called Double oak in Nevada County, CA. Aged 100 % on the lees, half in barels that get stirred, half in stainless, not stirred. malo kept down. Very good mid line between oaked and unoaked.

rjquillin

With all the talk about Cycles lately I figured I'd pull one to have with some leftover spaghetti with clams. A 2009 Merlot, $6 World Market purchase from back in 2011. Not bad at all, especially considering the price. PnP; simple but nice fruits and well balanced by some wood and tannins on the finish; 13.5% AbV. I've spent much more for far less.

moondigger

Sorry, I missed this before. I wrote down some tasting notes but don't have them with me now. Summary: The main aromas and flavors were dark fruits and cherry. Juicy, with moderate acidity and tannins. It actually held up well after being open 24 hours. (My wife and I had some on Tuesday night and the rest last night.)

It reminded me of other Washington State Cabs I've had, including some from Columbia Crest (though with less tannin than is typical for Columbia Crest). This makes some sense, I guess, because the 2010 RBW uses Columbia Valley grapes. (I never tried the 2009 RBW Cab, which was apparently very good/somewhat unusual but used grapes from Walla Walla Valley.)

moondigger

2009 Winter's Hill Pinot Noir. I have some (lengthy) commentary about it, but not sure if it should be posted here or on the March 13 offer thread. (Part of my commentary is related to one of the questions raised on that thread, but it seems pretty dead now.)

rjquillin

moondigger wrote:2009 Winter's Hill Pinot Noir. I have some (lengthy) commentary about it, but not sure if it should be posted here or on the March 13 offer thread. (Part of my commentary is related to one of the questions raised on that thread, but it seems pretty dead now.)

Some of us frequently check back with the original thread(s) when drinking.
I for one store the link in my CT for later reference.

moondigger

There were already detailed tasting notes posted on the March 13 offer thread, mostly consistent with what I'm tasting right now - especially bsevern's notes, for which my only minor disagreement is that I wouldn't have said my bottle has a "nice tartness." Not saying bsevern is wrong; I think I might be less sensitive to tartness than average, or alternatively I might just like acidity more than most. (I found this to be the case with the Vino Noceto Riserva Sangiovese as well -- I thought it had a pleasant tartness but no pucker, while my wife thought it had some pucker factor.)

The main reason I'm commenting, though, is to address the question from the earlier discussion about whether this Pinot is more Oregonian or Californian.

Pinot used to be my favorite varietal. But in the mid 2000s, when the cost of a decent Oregon Pinot rose beyond my budget, and when the least expensive Saintsbury Pinot ("Garnet") hit $20 a bottle at my local wine discounter, I gave up. I shifted my interests to Zin, Shiraz/Syrah and Cabs, for which decent bottles could be had for considerably less than a decent bottle of Pinot. And my preferences/palate changed to match.

So I was pretty curious about whether I would still find Pinot enjoyable, at this late date, for less than $15 a bottle.

With my first sample of the Winter's Hill, the memories came rushing back, and they screamed "Oregon" to me.

Imagining a number line with 20 points on it, quintessential California Pinot on the left at point 0 and quintessential Oregon Pinot on the right at point 20, I'd put this wine right around 16 or 17.

It's only after doing some critical analysis that I get what RPM was saying about it falling in between the two styles. Mine is a gut reaction to the overall experience -- bouquet, mid-palate, and finish, without much critical thought. The whole thing together says "Oregon" to me, even if upon further reflection there are a couple of aspects that don't quite fit the Oregonian mold.

Anyhow, it's clear that I still like Pinot quite a bit after several years away from it -- at least this Pinot. Maybe the next time I see a Carneros Pinot pop up here for a reasonable price, I'll bite, just for the sake of comparison.

EDIT: I was ready to post this, and now I have to backpedal a bit. Now that the bottle's been open for a couple hours, it's starting to shift left on my number line. Both the nose and the flavors seem less typically Oregonian now. I still don't think I would call it a California Pinot in a blind taste, but it's not as far to the right on my number line now. Maybe a 13? Now I'll be forced to sample it again tomorrow to see how it evolves. ;)

moondigger

jmdavidson

2005 Ty Caton Racchus Red Reserve Sonona Valley. Found this recently in a local grocery store being displayed in not the best conditions. But surprisingly, this is holding up very well. Good fruit balance and a nice finish. Would this qualify as a library wine now?

mbuffy

2008 Duckhorn Merlot (just the regular merlot...not the three palms one...that's still in the cellar for later).

Young, but tasty. Between 3 and 4, but closer to 3 on my 5 point scale:

1) awful, never buy again
2) drinkable, perhaps barely, perhaps more than barely, but not worth caring about to buy again
3) decent, a solid wine, worth buying again, but not going to wow anyone
4) an excellent wine. not the most incredible, but getting there, and definitely one to make note of to try to buy again
5) the most outstanding wines I have ever had -- don't care what they cost, they're phenomenal

So, the Duckhorn Merlot tonight rated 3.1 or 3.2 on the above scale.

Caymus Special Selection is an example of a 4.

Silver Oak Napa Valley is close to a 4, but not really a 4 these days.

Opus One is a 4+ -- sometimes just a 4, and sometimes a bit over, but not even a 4.5.

Bond St. Eden is as close to a 5 as I've had -- probably a 5, and if not, it's a 4.9 (gotta leave some room for something to top it, just like the judges do in gymnastics or ice skating at the Olympics...).

I like my rating scale better than the typical 100 point scale. It seems less precise, but for my own purposes, I can more easily tell what I thought of a wine by whether I rated it starting with a 3.something or a 4.something, etc. This means more to me than 88, 89, 90, 91....really? That fine of a gradation? Robert Parker look out, we have a super-taster in the house! (not me...LOL)

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.